alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document









































 
 

  Exhibit 10.19    
    


 BASE SALARIES OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY  



        As of October 1, 2009, the following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) of the executive officers of Network
Engines, Inc.: 

 






 



					
	Name and Title



 
	 	Base Salary 	 
	 Gregory A. Shortell
	 	$	375,000	 
	 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
	 	 	 	 
	 Douglas G. Bryant
	 	
$	

240,000	 
	 Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
	 	 	 	 
	 Charles N. Cone, III
	 	
$	

255,000	 
	 Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing
	 	 	 	 
	 Richard P. Graber
	 	
$	

205,000	 
	 Senior Vice President of Engineering and Operations
	 	 	 	 




 

 








QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.19
##### 



Certification of the
Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Valley National
Gases Incorporated;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent function):
    /s/ William A. IndelicatoChief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 1 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 1

Providing for a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate and an 
              adjournment of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 5, 2011

   Mr. Reid submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate and an 
              adjournment of the House of Representatives.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That (a) when the Senate adjourns or recesses on any day from 
Wednesday, January 5, 2011, through Monday, January 10, 2011, on a 
motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority 
leader or his designee, it stand adjourned or recessed until 10 a.m. on 
Tuesday, January 25, 2011, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant 
to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and
     (b) when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Wednesday, 
January 12, 2011, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent 
resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned 
until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, January 18, 2011, or until the time of any 
reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and when the House adjourns on any legislative 
day from Wednesday, January 26, 2011, through Friday, January 28, 2011, 
on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 
majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on 
Tuesday, February 8, 2011, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant 
to section 3 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. (a) The majority leader of the Senate, or his designee, 
after consultation with the minority leader of the Senate, or his 
designee, shall notify the Members of the Senate to reassemble at such 
place and time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public 
interest shall warrant it.
    (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), when the Senate 
recesses or adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by 
its majority leader or his designee, the Senate shall again stand 
recessed or adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent 
resolution.
    Sec. 3.  The Speaker or his designee, after consultation with the 
minority leader of the House, shall notify Members of the House to 
reassemble at such place and time as he may designate if, in his 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2019399EN.01006702.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/67

---

Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO (LA PASSIATA)

(Case T-70/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 399/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. L. Capostagno and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Passi AG (Rothrist, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2018 (Case R 928/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Passi and Nosio.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Nosio SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Nosio SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, LouisPrichard, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand result of operations of the Company.

 

 

|   |   | /s/  Louis Prichard      |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |   |                     |
|   |   | March 30,  2009     |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by KentuckyBancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
# C_2020175EN.01002801.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/28

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2020 — Aceto Agricultural Chemicals v Commission

(Case T-612/19 R)

(Application for interim relief - Plant protection products - Non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpropham - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2020/C 175/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corp. Ltd (Chester, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, A. Dawes and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/989 of 17 June 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpropham, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 160, p. 11).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
# C_2020095EN.01001001.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/10

---

Appeal brought on 23 August 2019 by Sigrid Dickmanns against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 11 June 2019 in Case T-538/18, Sigrid Dickmanns v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-631/19 P)

(2020/C 95/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Sigrid Dickmanns (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 5 February 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the unsuccessful party to bear its own costs.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 7, 2018

d1204

Order 

Clerk

December 7, 2018

158672

In re SIRBAUGH, Minors. SC: 158672

COA: 342369

Oakland CC Family Division:

2016-839704-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
China Interactive Education, Inc. - Exhibit 10.8 - Prepared By TNT
Filings Inc.




  




Exhibit 10.8


(English Translation)


Project
Development Agreement


Ning Xia Xing Ri Electronics
Co., Ltd (Collectively, “Party A”) and Wisegate International Limited
(Collectively, “Party B”) voluntarily entered into this agreement, on the
basis of mutual benefits, that Party A shall trust Party B to develop EPC
computer and learning products related software. The pending matters described
in this agreement shall be solved by both parties in friendly negotiation
manner on the fair basis. The articles of such agreement are as following:


	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
 1.

 	
 The project design shall be subject to
 request plan provided by Party A. In the event that the all changes or
 amendments (functions and data) commented by Party A shall be notified to
 Party B in advance and be discussed by both parties; In the event of delay
 delivery due to material revision requested by Party A, Party A shall bear
 the responsibility.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
 2.

 	
 Development Time

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 First version of development cycle is
 2008/01/02-2008/10/30

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
 3.

 	
 Responsibility & Obligation

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 3.1

 	
 The Party A shall be in charge of learning
 and synchronization thesaurus. The Party B shall be in charge of electronic
 dictionary and computer; The both parties shall be in charge of its own model
 testing. The entire test and check upon delivery shall be completed by Party
 A.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 3.2

 	
 The Party A shall be in charge of hardware
 including DENO model and prototype manufacture; Party B shall furnish
 technology support.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 3.3

 	
 The tools used for Party B’ development
 shall be provided by itself.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 3.4

 	
 Party B shall keep related materials, data
 and programs of such project confidential and shall not reveal, disclose or
 transfer any materials, data or procedures of Party A to the third party.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 3.5

 	
 The source program shall be comprehensively
 provided.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 3.6

 	
 The Party B shall be paid by Party A in
 accordance with article 4.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
 4.

 	
 Fee

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 4.1

 	
 Fee for materials and data:

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 a.

 	
 EPC 

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 b.

 	
 Chinese – English Dictionary

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 c.

 	
 Software development fee

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 The total amount : RMB 1,276,000.00

 












	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 4.2

 	
 Payment term: Party A shall pay all fee in
 installments, subject to Party B’s instruction. The tax arose from project development
 shall be borne by Party A.

 



Party A: Ning
Xia Xing Ri Electronics Co., Ltd


Date :
2008/01/01


Party B:
Wisegate International Limited


Date :
2008/01/01
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bradford Elmore GOODMAN, also known as Gyypsy Goodman, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50471

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 20, 2009.

Joseph H Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Walter Mabry Reaves, Jr., Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

*812PER CURIAM: *

Bradford Elmore Goodman appeals the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography. He contends that his below-guidelines sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not give a sufficient explanation for the sentence. Because Goodman did not object to the explanation at sentencing, we review this contention for plain error. *See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez,*526 F.8d 804, 806 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 625, 172 L.Ed.2d 617 (2008). The district court listened to the arguments of the parties and elected to impose a below-guidelines sentence, which was reduced to reflect the statutory maximum. *See United States v. Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d 554, 565 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 624, 172 L.Ed.2d 617 (2008); *see also Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2463-65, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). There was no clear or obvious error that affected Goodman’s substantial rights or rendered the sentence procedurally unreasonable. *See United States v. Izaguirre-Losoya,*219 F.3d 437, 441 (5th Cir.2000).

Goodman also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because there is no empirical support for U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, the Guideline governing child pornography. He did not challenge the empirical grounds for § 2G2.2 in the district court, so his contention is reviewed for plain error. *See United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 328, 172 L.Ed.2d 236 (2008). Nothing in the record suggests that the district court disagreed with the policy behind the Guideline or believed that it was precluded by circuit precedent from imposing a lesser sentence in the face of § 2G2.2. Goodman has not shown plain error in this regard. *Id.*

Goodman argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is excessive in light of his offense conduct. The sentence imposed, however, is consistent with the properly calculated guidelines range, and we afford it a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. *See Rita,*127 S.Ct. at 2462; *United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Goodman’s disagreement with the harshness of the applicable guidelines and his contention that a lesser sentence would have been adequate are insufficient to demonstrate the substantive unreasonableness of his sentence.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.2

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of Minden Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Becky T. Harrell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                           /s/ Becky T. Harrell
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Becky T. Harrell
                                           Chief Financial Officer,
                                           March 30, 2004

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to Minden Bancorp, Inc. and will be
retained by Minden Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 USC SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Medallion Financial Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USCSection 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge: 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. 

By: /s/ Larry D. Hall 

Senior Vice President and 

Chief Financial Officer 

Date: March 11,2015
#### In the Matter of Richard Stiles, Petitioner, v Peter Phelan et al., Respondents.

Main, J. P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review respondent Peter Phelan’s determination which found petitioner guilty of misconduct and, *inter alia,*imposed a 30-day suspension.

Petitioner, a probation officer for St. Lawrence County, was charged with misconduct under Civil Service Law § 75 for threatening his wife and children with bodily harm and death. After a hearing, the charge, found to be job related due to petitioner’s employment in a law enforcement position, was sustained. The hearing officer recommended that, *inter alia,*petitioner be suspended for a total of 60 days and fined $600. Respondent Peter Phelan, the Director of the County’s Probation Department, imposed only a 30-day suspension, without a fine, and required that petitioner continue receiving professional help and that the results of the hearing be placed in petitioner’s personnel file. To challenge this determination, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, which has been transferred to this court.

Petitioner’s claim that his wife’s supporting deposition was improperly admitted into evidence at the hearing because it did not qualify under the business record exception to the hearsay rule is without merit. Compliance with the technical rules of evidence is not required in hearings such as the one afforded petitioner (Civil Service Law § 75 [2]). A sufficient foundation for the deposition was presented through the testimony of the investigating deputy sheriff, which revealed that petitioner’s wife dictated and signed the deposition. The contents of the *592deposition of petitioner’s wife support the charge and this evidence, considered in conjunction with the testimony of the investigating deputy and respondent Phelan, is more than uncorroborated hearsay such as that found in *Matter of Eppler v Van Alstyne*(93 AD2d 930, *appeal discontinued*60 NY2d 703), upon which petitioner erroneously relies. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence to support the administrative determination *(see, Matter of Eagle v Paterson,*57 NY2d 831, 833).

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Main, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### ALABAMA STEEL & WIRE CO. V. TOMLIN.

(Decided Jan. 23rd, 1908.)

Appeal from Cherokee Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. AY. W. Haralson.

Hood & Murphree, for appellant.

Connor & Lumpkin and C. Daniel, for appellee.

Affirmed for want of assignment of error.

Per curiam.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Brown, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 333]

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered July 27, 2010, resentencing defendant, as a second felony offender, to a term of 15 years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision was neither barred by double jeopardy nor otherwise unlawful *(see People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621 [2011]). We have no authority to revisit defendant’s prison sentence on this appeal *(see id.*at 635). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.